University of Northern Iowa University of Northern Iowa

UNI ScholarWorks UNI ScholarWorks

Honors Program Theses Honors Program

2010

Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical

judgment and intention judgment and intention

Monica Marie Johnston University of Northern Iowa

Let us know how access to this document benefits you

Copyright © 2010 Monica Marie Johnston

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt

Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Johnston, Monica Marie, "Perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on ethical judgment and intention" (2010). Honors Program Theses. 29. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt/29

This Open Access Honors Program Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uni.edu.

[1]

THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF AN ETHICAL SITUATION (PIE) ON

ETHICAL JUDGMENT AND INTENTION: BEYOND MORAL INTENSITY

A Thesis or Project

Submitted

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Designation

University Honors

Monica Marie Johnston

University of Northern Iowa

December 2010

[2]

The Perceived Importance of an ethical situation (PIE) on Ethical Judgment and Intention:

Beyond Moral Intensity

Introduction

The importance of ethics to the accounting profession is well established (Turpen and

Witmer, 1997; Abdolmohammadi, Read, and Scarbrough, 2003; Guffey and McCartney, 2008).

In accounting, a commitment to ethical behavior is regarded as the basis for all other

performance standards, (Turpen et al., 1997), and historically most agree that accountants

practice honest principles (Leitsch, 2006). However, business headlines such as those related to

the collapse of Enron and its auditor, Arthur Andersen, raise concerns about ethical actions of

accountants (Abdolmohammadi et al., 2003). Additionally, accountants and auditors have more

recently come under fire due to issues related to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac,

and the business ventures of Bernie Madoff among others. In reaction to these and other issues,

the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Institute of

Management Accountants (IMA) increased emphasis placed on ethics in their certification

examinations and the AICPA updated their code of professional conduct (AICPA Code of

Professional Conduct, Statement of Ethical Professional Practice).

Tangible costs related to unethical business behavior are often monetary in value. For

example, Microwave Communications, Inc. (MCI) went bankrupt following accusations of

falsified balance sheets resulting in shareholder losses close to $200 billion (Ho, 2003).

Additionally, effects of unethical behavior on an organization can have intangible costs that far

exceed monetary amounts. Consider the loss of credibility suffered by the Olympic movement

due to the 2002 Salt Lake City bribery scandal that diminished confidence in the organization

and endangered millions of corporate sponsorships (McMahon and Harvey, 2006).

[3]

Given its importance, it is crucial to the accounting profession that new entrants to the

field possess an acceptable level of ethical sensitivity and understanding. Ethical college

graduates likely become ethical professionals, and risks are great to firms that hire individuals

with questionable professional values (Turpen et al., 1997). It follows that an integral part of an

education in accounting involves fostering an environment where students are able to learn about

ethics. In order to determine how to best educate students on ethics, it is necessary to be aware of

the thought processes involved in ethical decision making (Guffey et al., 2008). Therefore, it is

essential that factors affecting ethical decisions are understood and incorporated into the moral

education of accountants (Barnett & Valentine, 2004). Understanding why and how individuals

and groups make ethical decisions in a business context can improve ethical decisions made in

an organizational context (Loe, et al., 2000). The purpose of this research is to explore the

ethical decision-making construct by creating and testing a new ethical scenario. In doing so, it

adds to previous business ethics research and provides a framework by which future research

may be conducted. Additionally, it contributes to previous studies of the ethical decision-making

process directed specifically at accounting students.

Review of Literature

Basic concepts and definitions related to ethical decision-making warrant discussion.

Mappes (1988) identifies ethics as the philosophical study of morality and Yetmar and Eastman

(2000) define ethical sensitivity as the ability to recognize or perceive ethical content in a

situation prior to making a decision. More specifically, moral issues are present where a person’s

actions, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others (Velasquez and Rostankowski,

1985). A moral agent is a person who makes a decision, even though he or she may not

recognize moral issues are at stake (Jones, 1991). An ethical decision is defined as a decision that

[4]

is both legally and morally acceptable, and an unethical decision is either illegal or morally

unacceptable to the larger community (Jones, 1991).

Early research related to accounting students and ethical decision-making by Cherrington

and Cherrington (1979) finds that in decisions involving moral dilemmas, accounting students

are more honest than students of other majors, and results reveal a tendency for accounting

students to exhibit slightly more ethical behavior. Arlow and Ulrich (1980, 1983) find that

accounting students have a higher level of personal business ethics than do non-accounting

students. Further, Fulmer and Cargile (1987) find accounting students tend toward more ethical

viewpoints concerning ethical issues than other business students. More recent research by Baird,

Zelin, and Brennan (2006) also finds accounting majors exhibiting the most ethical choices as

compared to individuals in other majors.

In contrast to these studies, Giacomino (1992), using the same questionnaire administered

in Fulmer et al. (1987), finds no difference between accounting majors and non-accounting

majors concerning ethical issues. Using a Defining Issues Test (DIT) developed by James Rest

(1979), Lampe and Finn (1992), Armstrong (1987) and Abdolmohammadi et al. (2003) all find

that accounting majors do not show a higher level of ethical reasoning than non-accounting

majors.

Differential findings as to the ethicality of accounting majors among various researchers

is the subject of much study, and many ethical decision making models have been developed to

illustrate the ethical decision making process and the personal and situational characteristics

involved (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Trevino, 1986; Rest, 1986;

Dubinsky and Loken, 1989). These models are not normative and do not deal with determining

[5]

what a subject should do regarding ethics, but rather they describe what individuals do when

faced with an ethical dilemma.

Rest’s (1986) theory of ethical decision making is easily transmittable to an

organizational setting. Rest presents a four-component model of individual ethical decision

making and behavior. The four components of Rest’s (1986) model propose that a moral agent

must 1) recognize the moral issue, 2) make a moral judgment, 3) resolve to place moral concerns

above other concerns, and 4) act on the moral concerns. In the literature, these stages are

identified as 1) awareness, 2) judgment, 3) intention, and 4) action/behavior. According to Rest

(1986), each stage is independent, and success is one stage does not indicate success in any of

the others.

The main limitation of Rest (1986) is that he fails to consider characteristics of moral

issues themselves (Jones, 1991). Instead, he focuses primarily on individuals’ characteristics and

organizational, cultural, and situational influences. Jones’ (1991) model addresses this problem

and suggests that characteristics of issues themselves, collectively termed moral intensity, are

also important determinants of ethical decision-making and behavior. Jones (1991) argues that

moral intensity varies from issue to issue and has a significant impact on each of the four

components of ethical decision-making in Rest’s model. If Rest’s (1986) model is used with no

consideration given to moral intensity, the predictions for stealing a pack of paper clips may be

the same as stealing $1,000,000.

Jones’ moral intensity model also suggests ethical dilemmas are identified by their

saliency. Items are salient to the extent they stand out from their backgrounds. Saliency varies

substantially from issue to issue, and only a few issues achieve high levels of saliency (Sweeney

and Costello, 2009). Previous studies suggest that the dimensions of moral intensity significantly

[6]

influence the moral decision-making process of various respondents (Singhapakdi, 1996, 1999;

Frey, 2000; May and Flannery, 2000).

One component of Jones’ (1991) model is social consensus, defined as the degree of

social agreement that a proposed act is good or evil. Moral intensity increases as the agreement

an act is wrong increases. If a person does not know what constitutes good quality ethics in a

situation, it is difficult for them to act ethically (Jones, 1991). Probability of effect, another

component of Jones’ model, is defined as the joint function of the probability that the act in

question will actually take place and cause the harm or benefit predicted. For this component, the

greater the likelihood of the act taking place and causing harm or benefit, the greater the moral

intensity. The model additionally includes a component termed temporal immediacy, defined as

the length of time between the present and the onset of the consequences of the moral act, where

a shorter length of time implies greater immediacy and greater need for ethicality. The fourth

element of Jones’ model is the concentration of effect, which is an inverse function of the

number of people affected by an act of given magnitude. Jones’ argument is that as more

individuals are affected by the moral decision, and therefore bear proportionately less loss, the

more likely the agent is to engage in unethical behavior. Jones also recognizes proximity as a part

of the moral intensity model, where proximity is defined as the feelings of nearness/closeness

(social, cultural, psychological, or physical) an agent has for the victim(s) of the act in question.

Here, Jones’ argument is that people care more about individuals that are closer to them than

they do to people who are more physically or culturally distant. The final component of Jones’

(1991) model is termed magnitude of consequence and is defined as the sum of the harms or

benefits done to others due to the moral act in question. Jones argues that serious consequences

are more likely to prompt ethical behavior than modest consequences.

[7]

Previous studies find the six dimensions of moral intensity to significantly influence the

moral decision-making process of various respondents (Singhapakdi, 1996, 1999; Frey, 2000;

May and Flannery, 2000). Leitsch (2006) applies Jones’ (1991) model specifically to accounting

students. Her research supports that of Jones’ and suggests that all of the dimensions of moral

intensity significantly predict accounting students’ moral judgment and intentions. She finds that,

overall, the perceived moral intensity seems to vary depending on the nature of the situation in

the scenario and also that the moral intensity components have interaction effects (Leitsch,

2006).

While Jones (1991) believes that each component of moral intensity is distinct from the

other five components, Jones also feels it may be appropriate to consider the components as a

single construct for two reasons. First, Jones (1991) feels that “the six moral intensity

components are all characteristics of the moral issue itself” and that “the components are

expected to have interactive effects, at least at some levels” (p. 378). Second, Jones (1991) states

that moral intensity is believed to have increased if there is an increase in any one of its

components (assuming the other components remain constant). Additionally, each component

may have a “threshold” that must be reached before it becomes significant in the moral intensity

construct. Leitsch’s (2006) study of moral intensity components finds that the components do

have correlated effects, which is consistent with the findings of Singhapakdi et al. (1996),

Barnett (2001), and May and Flannery (2000). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the

components of moral intensity are considered together as one construct (high vs. low).

While Jones (1991) significantly improves the conceptualization of ethical decision-

making beyond Rest’s (1986) model, it still does not address the saliency of the ethical issue

itself to an individual. An individualistic characteristic of ethical decision-making discussed

[8]

more recently in the literature is defined as the Perceived Importance of an Ethical issue to an

individual (Robin, Reidenbach, and Forrest, 1996; Haines, Street, and Haines, 2008; Guffey et

al., 2008). This theory considers “an individual’s values, beliefs, needs, perceptions, special

characteristics of the situation, and the personal pressures existing” in an ethical decision-making

situation. This focus is different from Jones’ (1991) model because Jones focuses on

characteristics of the issue itself rather than individual perceptions of the issue.

To test a theory of perceived individual importance of an ethical situation (PIE), Robin et

al. (1996) present fictional scenarios with various characters making unethical decisions. Robin

et al. (1996) find that PIE has a significant impact on the ethical judgment and intentions of

subjects. Individuals high in PIE are more critical of the ethical content of the scenarios than are

those low in PIE, and high PIE individuals are less likely to engage in the same unethical

behavior depicted in the scenarios than those low in PIE (Robin et al. 1996). However, Robin et

al. (1996) acknowledge their study is only an initial test of PIE.

This augmentation of Jones’ (1991) focus on the impact of moral intensity on ethical

decision-making is important because it suggests an individual’s ethical decision-making process

can be influenced even when the ethical issue itself cannot (Guffey et al., 2008). As noted by

Robin et al. (1996, p. 17), “Rewards and punishments, documents like codes of ethics, and

values from the corporate culture can all be used to influence individual perceptions of the

ethical issue’s importance on the job.” In a follow up to the initial research, Guffey et al. (2008)

extend the study conducted by Robin et al. (1996) by applying similar ideals to accounting

students. In the study by Guffey et al. (2008), the researchers hypothesize that high levels of PIE

will result in greater condemnation of an unethical act and that, conversely, low levels of PIE

will result in lesser condemnation of an unethical act. Their findings support this hypothesis.

[9]

Similarly, Haines et al. (2008) predict that PIE will be directly related to moral judgment, and

their findings support this prediction. While the researchers discuss the potential implications of

Jones’ (1991) moral intensity components as they relate to PIE, the study does not measure these

components in an attempt to establish a relationship to PIE.

Hypotheses

My research explores the relationship of PIE and moral intensity on ethical judgment and

intention. Specifically, it measures the incremental impact of PIE beyond the impact of moral

intensity on ethical judgment and intention. Hypotheses 1 & 2 thus state:

H1: The perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has a positive impact on

ethical judgment above and beyond the impact of moral intensity on judgment.

H2: The perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has a positive impact on

ethical intention above and beyond the impact of moral intensity.

Previous ethics research involving accounting majors usually examines the relationship

between gender and ethical decision-making. The results of these studies are inconclusive as

there is research that find no significant gender related ethical differences (Giacomino, 1992;

Abdolmohammadi, et al., 2003; Stanga and Turpen, 1991) as well as studies that find females to

have higher ethics (Baird, et al., 2006; Sankaran and Bui, 2003; Ibrahim and Angelidis, 2009).

With no a priori expectation of a gender difference, this thesis will also test for gender

differences in ethical decision-making from the null hypothesis perspective. Hypothesis 3 is

presented:

H3: There will be no difference in the ethical judgment or intention of females as

compared to males.

[10]

Methodology

Experimental Design

This research incorporates a 2x2 full-factorial design. Since scenarios have worked well

in previous studies to create an experimental ethical dilemma (Rest, 1986; Flory et al., 1992;

Robin et al., 1996; Guffey et al., 2008) they are also used in this study. PIE is manipulated

between two scenarios (See Appendix A), one adapted from Flory et al. (1992) and one created

specifically to appeal to subjects in this study. This second scenario was developed to proxy for

a highly salient ethical situation (high PIE) (See Appendix B). The first scenario, adapted from

Flory et al. (1992), involves a manager at a fictional company (Stern Electronics) facing an

ethical business decision. This scenario was chosen with the belief that it would be less salient to

the subjects and therefore elicit a lower PIE. The second scenario, developed specifically for this

thesis, involves the social networking instrument Facebook® and involves an ethical

employment recruiting situation regarding individuals connected within the electronic network. I

believed initially that this would be a very salient ethical situation to student subjects and

anticipated it to be higher in PIE than the Stern Electronics scenario because students have more

experience with Facebook® than with management and would potentially relate more to the

Facebook® scenario. Internal Review Board approval was gained, and their protocols were

followed in the administration of the survey.

Moral intensity was manipulated by varying all components of Jones’ (1991) model to

create high vs. low morally intense ethical scenarios. For example, half of the Stern Electronics

scenarios indicate a loss of 70% of a potentially bad sale while the other half, indicate losses of

only 20%. This manipulation addressed the magnitude of consequences component of moral

intensity. Likewise, half of the Facebook® scenarios stated that revealing information to a

[11]

recruiter would cost an individual a full-time job while the other half of the Facebook® scenarios

indicated the consequence would be the loss of a summer leadership program opportunity. This

same concept is extended to all six of Jones’ (1991) dimensions of moral intensity (See

Appendix C). Additionally, the scenarios randomly use a male or female actor to reduce the

possibility of gender bias. Students were informed that their participation was voluntary and that

any responses made would remain anonymous.

The experiment was conducted between subjects. Each student received one scenario to

read and evaluate. The rationale was that including two scenarios may lead some students to

identify that the scenarios had been manipulated, creating bias in the results if the experiment

had been conducted within subjects.

Included with each scenario was a set of thirteen action statements that prompted students

to evaluate different ethical components of the scenario. Two statements addressed Rest’s (1986)

stages of ethical judgment and intention. Statements used are adapted from previous research

conducted by May and Pauli (2002) and Singhapakdi et al. (1996) and asked students to rank

their agreement/disagreement on a Likert-type scale with a (7) indicating Strongly Agree and a

(1) indicating Strongly Disagree. A number of the statements were reverse scored in order to

discourage response bias. Students were also asked to rank their agreement/disagreement (using

the same Likert-type scale) as it related to each of Jones’ (1991) moral intensity components.

These six statements originate from Singhapakdi et al. (1996) and are also used by May et al.

(2000) and Leitsch (2006). It should be noted that an error occurred when structuring the

statement relating to Jones’ (1991) fifth component of moral intensity (proximity). This error

was not discovered until after the administration of survey, and therefore the component for

proximity is not included in the statistical analysis. The statements developed and implemented

[12]

to measure PIE are adapted from Robin et al. (1996) and are based on earlier measures by

Zaichkowsky (1985). A similar instrument is also employed by Haines et al. (2008) and

McGuffey et al. (2008) which requires students to rank, on a seven-point scale, the

importance/unimportance of an issue, the significance/insignificance of an issue, whether an

issue is of concern/no concern, and whether an issue is fundamental or trivial. The same 7-point

Likert type scale is employed in these measurements of PIE. Additionally, students provided

demographic information including gender, major, and grade point average. (See Appendix B).

Participants

Participants were undergraduate accounting majors from a mid-sized Midwestern

university enrolled in Intermediate Accounting II or Governmental Not-For-Profit. A total of 89

students participated in the study. The sample was comprised of 40 males, 46 females, and 3

students who did not disclose their gender. The sample population was made up completely of

accounting majors, though some students indicated that they were also pursuing an additional

degree.

Results

Construct Validity

The components of moral intensity are integral to the outcome of this study. Therefore, it

is important to determine if these components can be accurately and effectively combined into

one construct. As mentioned above, responses relating to the fifth moral intensity component

(proximity) are left out of the statistical analysis. For the other components, the Cronbach’s

coefficient alpha, a common measure used to test the consistency among scales, is used to

determine their inter-correlation. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the combined components

comes to α= .65. The widely-accepted social science cut-off is that alpha should be .70 or higher.

[13]

However, in exploratory research, such as this study, an alpha as lenient as .60 is acceptable

(Garson, 2010). These results are consistent with the findings of Singhapakdi et al. (1996),

Barnett (2001) and Leitsch (2006) and suggest that the components of moral intensity, for the

most part, are highly correlated.

As discussed earlier in the paper, PIE is manipulated in this thesis to be either high

(Facebook® scenario) or low (Stern Electronics scenario). Unexpectedly, however, most

students found both scenarios to be high in ethicality. It appears that, even without technical

analysis of this data, accounting majors perceive ethically charged decision-making situations to

be personally, ethically important. For this reason the data is partitioned into either high PIE or

lower PIE as represented by responses to question 11 on the survey, which states, “I believe

Paul’s behavior in the above scenario is…” High PIE respondents answered either (7) Extremely

Significant or (6) Significant (after adjustment for reverse scoring). Lower PIE subjects

answered either (5) Somewhat Significant, (4) Neutral, (3) Somewhat Insignificant, (2)

Insignificant, or (1) Highly Insignificant. Question 11 is selected because of the relative balance

of subjects in High PIE (48) vs. Lower PIE (41) and because the statement itself is a good

representation of PIE.

Tests of Hypotheses

Hypothesis one states that perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has an

impact on ethical judgment over and above the effect of moral intensity. That is, the more

ethically salient an individual perceives the experimental scenario to be (PIE) the more ethical a

judgment he/she will make in the process, beyond that explained by moral intensity. An

ANOVA using statement number 11 (PERPIE3) and moral intensity (MIHILOW) as

independent variables is used. Both moral intensity (F=3.42, p<.07) and PIE (F=5.04, p<.03)

[14]

have an impact on ethical judgment at p<.10. Further, contrast analyses indicate that PIE has an

impact on moral judgment (REST2) when moral intensity is high (t=2.23, p<.02). These results

show that PIE has an effect on ethical judgment over and above the impact of moral intensity on

judgment. However, when moral intensity is low, the impact of PIE is not significant (t=.50,

p<.31, see Table 4). A possible explanation for these results may be that an individual’s

perception of the importance of an ethical scenario (PIE) does not become a factor for making

ethical judgments until the issue becomes morally intense enough to be recognized as significant

or insignificant to the individual.

Hypothesis two states the perceived importance of an ethical situation (PIE) has an

impact on ethical intention over and above the impact of moral intensity. An ANOVA using

MIHILOW as an independent variable along with PIE indicates a positive effect for moral

intensity (MIHILOW F=10.1, p<.00) but no effect for PIE (PERPIE3 F=.07, p<.8, see Table 5).

Contrast analyses indicate that PIE has no impact on moral intention (REST3) when moral

intensity is high (t=.19, p<.43) or low (t=.19, p<.42). These results indicate that PIE has no effect

on ethical intentions, and therefore Hypothesis two is not supported. A possible reason for PIE

not having an impact on ethical intention may be found in the relationship of ethical judgment

and intention. As mentioned earlier, Rest (1986) feels that each stage of the decision-making

process is distinct and that a person with a well-developed sense of reasoning or judgment may

not necessarily intend to act morally. Jones (1991) postulates that a decision about what is

morally “correct” (judgment) is not the same as a decision to act (intent) based on the judgment.

Further, Haines et al. (2008) provide support that PIE is a causal variable preceding moral

judgment rather than directly influencing moral intent. After making an ethical judgment, one

must balance competing factors when determining intent (Guffey, et al. 2008). This means that

[15]

one may be willing to act unethically despite a personal judgment that an act is unethical. As

evidenced by the accounting frauds mentioned earlier, one may know that it is wrong to overstate

assets on a balance sheet, but may choose to overstate them despite this acknowledgment.

Hypothesis three states there is no difference in the ethical decision-making of female

accounting majors versus male accounting majors. As predicted, gender has no relationship on

either of the two stages of ethical decision-making presented in this study (ethical judgment or

intention). An ANOVA analysis of gender shows that no relationship exists between gender and

ethical judgment (F=.075. p<.785) or intentions (F=.494, p<.484). An additional ANOVA

analysis suggests that gender has no influence related to moral intensity (F=1.13, p<.30) or PIE

(F=.02, p<.90, see Table 10). These results indicate that the differences in the average of answers

given by males and females are not significant.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications for Future Research

The purpose of this study is to test the incremental impact of PIE on ethical judgment and

intention beyond that explained by moral intensity. In doing so it creates and tests a new ethical

scenario representing an ethical decision-making situation high in perceived importance to

college-aged subjects. PIE’s impact on ethical judgment, beyond the impact of moral intensity on

ethical judgment, is as hypothesized. However, the impact of PIE on ethical intentions does not

produce the anticipated results. As mentioned earlier, the manipulation of PIE in this research is

challenged. Accounting major subjects in this study considered both scenarios (high PIE vs. low

PIE) to be ethically salient. Pretesting would have allowed for the Facebook® scenario to be

retooled presenting an ethical dilemma higher in ethicality than the Stern Electronics scenario.

Thus it is possible that even though the data was partitioned into high PIE vs. lower PIE, that

difference was not substantial enough to correctly identify an impact of PIE on ethical intention.

[16]

It is interesting, however, that the partitioning into high vs. lower PIE was different enough to

discern the incremental impact of PIE on ethical judgment.

Another limitation is the lack of control over referent comparisons students’ might be

making in evaluating the ethical scenarios. As discussed, each student received only one

scenario, and therefore could not weight the severity or importance of their particular issue

against any of the other manipulated scenarios when responding. Providing a base-line neutral

ethical situation might have helped align respondents reactions to the subsequent high

(Facebook®) vs. low (Stern Electronics) ethical situations.

This study is admittedly limited in terms of scope. The sample population includes only

subjects from one Midwestern university and includes mostly subjects of Caucasian descent

raised in the Midwest. It is possible that students with different backgrounds and cultural

upbringings would view the scenarios in different ways. Additionally, there is a possibility that a

difference in ethical decision-making will be found when using professionals, whether they are

in the accounting field or not. It may also be interesting to include individuals with no college

degree at all. Similarly, analyzing differences in age may highlight any generational differences

that exist between subjects. An additional item that could prove useful in an analysis is whether

or not the student has any prior exposure to an ethics education course, as this may provide

insight into the effectiveness of classroom ethics training.

As with all behavioral research using experimentation, the subjects are acting within an

artificial setting. Many of the situational pressures and distractions present in a real world

context are not present. Responses may also be influenced by social desirability, meaning that

subjects respond in a manner to which they might be expected. There is also no attempt to

measure actual ethical behavior/action. To do so might encourage an individual to act in an

[17]

unethical manner. A presumption made in this research, in line with previous ethics research, is

that ethical judgment and intent are significant to the determination of appropriate behavior

(Jones, 1991; Robin et al. 1996; Guffey, et al. 2008; Haines et al. 2008). Additional research that

investigates actual behavior would make significant contributions to this area. It is difficult to

determine how an individual will act without allowing them to actually do so.

Additionally, statements or questions could be added at the end of the scenarios that ask

the subjects to make decisions about moral intensity components. For example, the statement

“How likely would you be to refrain from the action if the expected losses were only 5% instead

of 10%” would be a possible way of exploring the variation of a moral intensity component in

place of manipulating a number in the scenario itself. The same could be done for the PIE

parameters. For example, the statement “I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario would

be more important if…” would allow the researcher to insert an additional situation, thereby

allowing the individual to make a comparison.

The findings above add to existing business ethics literature. Specifically, the Facebook®

scenario and the manipulations of moral intensity components within all scenarios are unique to

this study. Though previous studies consider both moral intensity and PIE, actual testing

considers only PIE or moral intensity. This study tests moral intensity and PIE together for the

first time. Additionally, the findings contribute to previous studies of the ethical decision-making

process directed specifically at accounting students as very few previous studies focus on PIE

and moral intensity as related to accounting students. Ethical accounting professionals are

significant to accurate financial reporting, and failure in this area leads to significant financial

and other losses. The only way to improve understanding of why and how accountants make

[18]

ethical decisions in a business context is by continued research, and this study provides a

framework by which future research may be conducted.

[19]

Appendix A

Table 1: Moral Intensity Components Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.650 5

[20]

Table 2: PERPIE3 and MIHILOW for Ethical Judgment

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:Ethical Judgment

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 26.976a 3 8.992 4.109 .009

Intercept 2045.763 1 2045.763 934.826 .000

PERPIE3 7.472 1 7.472 3.415 .068

MIHILOW 11.041 1 11.041 5.045 .027

PERPIE3 *

MIHILOW

2.598 1 2.598 1.187 .279

Error 186.013 85 2.188

Total 2428.000 89

Corrected Total 212.989 88

a. R Squared = .127 (Adjusted R Squared = .096)

[21]

Table 3: High Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Judgment

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Ethical

Judgment

Equal

variances

assumed

4.418 .041 2.231 43 .031 .946 .424 .091 1.801

Equal

variances

not

assumed

2.060 24.708 .050 .946 .459 -.001 1.893

[22]

Table 4: Low Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Judgment

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95%

Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Ethical

Judgment

Equal

variances

assumed

2.407 .128 .504 42 .617 .244 .484 -.733 1.221

Equal

variances

not

assumed

.491 34.333 .627 .244 .498 -.767 1.255

[23]

Table 5: PERPIE3 and MIHILOW for Ethical Intention

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:Ethical Intentions

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 30.083a 3 10.028 3.711 .015

Intercept 1646.041 1 1646.041 609.134 .000

PERPIE3 .194 1 .194 .072 .789

MIHILOW 27.349 1 27.349 10.121 .002

PERPIE3 *

MIHILOW

2.660E-5 1 2.660E-5 .000 .998

Error 229.692 85 2.702

Total 2004.000 89

Corrected Total 259.775 88

a. R Squared = .116 (Adjusted R Squared = .085)

[24]

Table 6: High Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Intention Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Ethical

Intentions

Equal

variances

assumed

.441 .510 .186 43 .853 .097 .520 -.952 1.146

Equal

variances

not

assumed

.199 37.011 .844 .097 .488 -.892 1.086

[25]

Table 7: Low Moral Intensity and PERPIE3 for Ethical Intention

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Ethical

Intentions

Equal

variances

assumed

1.394 .244 .193 42 .848 .095 .492 -.898 1.088

Equal

variances

not

assumed

.189 36.153 .851 .095 .501 -.920 1.110

[26]

Table 8: Ethical Judgment and Intention by Gender ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Ethical Judgment Between Groups .187 1 .187 .075 .785

Within Groups 209.813 84 2.498

Total 210.000 85

Ethical Intentions Between Groups 1.505 1 1.505 .494 .484

Within Groups 255.704 84 3.044

Total 257.209 85

[27]

Table 9: MIHILOW by Gender

ANOVA

Moral intensity high/low

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .284 1 .284 1.125 .292

Within Groups 21.204 84 .252

Total 21.488 85

[28]

Table 10: PERPIE3 by Gender

ANOVA

Perceived Importance

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .013 1 .013 .016 .899

Within Groups 69.475 84 .827

Total 69.488 85

[29]

Appendix B

The following instructions preceded each scenario:

Please read the following brief scenario and then answer the questions which follow. Thank you

for your participation. You should circle the answer you feel most appropriately represents your

feelings about the statement. Some brief demographic questions are presented at the end of the

instrument.

Stern Electronics Scenario – Low Moral Intensity

Paul Tate is the assistant controller at Stern Electronics, a medium-sized manufacturer of electrical equipment, wholly owned by a parent corporation based in the Netherlands (multiple shareholders). Paul is in his late fifties and plans to retire soon. His daughter has been accepted into medical school, and financial concerns are weighing heavily on his mind. Paul’s boss (Controller) is out of the office recuperating from health problems, and in his absence Paul is making all decisions for the department. Paul receives a phone call from an old friend requesting a sizable amount of equipment on credit for a new business. Paul is sympathetic but cognizant of the risk of extending credit to a new company, especially under Stern's parent company’s strict new credit policies. When Paul mentions this conversation to the Director of Finance, the Director is immediately interested. The Finance Director notes that the company needs an additional $250,000 in sales to meet the quarterly budget and thus ensure bonuses for management, including Paul. The Finance Director also notes that if the new company defaults on payment of the equipment, it’s likely to be over a year before the problem is uncovered by Stern’s auditors. After some analysis, Paul determines there is only a 10% chance that extending credit to his friend will result in a default on payment. If it does happen, however, it’s predicted that bad debt will amount to 20% of the total sale. After discretely asking around, Paul finds about other individuals in the firm that have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales.

Stern Electronics Scenario – High Moral Intensity

Paul Tate is the assistant controller at Stern Electronics, a medium-sized manufacturer of electrical equipment, owned locally and solely by its Chief Operating Officer (COO). Paul is in his late fifties and plans to retire soon. His daughter has been accepted into medical school, and financial concerns are weighing heavily on his mind. Paul’s boss (Controller) is out of the office recuperating from health problems, and in his absence Paul is making all decisions for the department. Paul receives a phone call from an old friend requesting a sizable amount of equipment on credit for a new business. Paul is sympathetic but cognizant of the risk of extending credit to a new company, especially under their owner/COO’s strict new credit policies. When Paul mentions this conversation to the Director of Finance, the Director is immediately interested. The Finance Director notes that the company needs an additional $250,000 in sales to meet the quarterly budget and thus ensure bonuses for management, including Paul. The Finance Director also notes that if the new company defaults on payment of the equipment, it’s likely to be in the next quarter before the problem is uncovered by Stern’s auditors. After some analysis, Paul determines there is a 60% chance that extending credit to his friend will result in a default on payment. If it does happen, however, it’s predicted that bad debt will amount to 70% of the total sale. After discretely asking around, Paul finds out that no other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales.

[30]

Action: Paul decides to make the sale to his friend's new business. Please evaluate his

actions. 1. Paul should not do the proposed action. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

2. If I were Paul, I would make the same decision. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

3. I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario is: Extremely Important Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Unimportant. Extremely Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

4. The overall harm (if any) done as a result of Paul’s action would be very small. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

5. Most people would agree that Paul’s action is wrong. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

6. There is a very small likelihood that Paul’s action will actually cause any harm. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

7. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Considerable Concern Somewhat Neutral Somewhat No Concern Considerably Concern of concern of no concern of no concern 8. Paul’s action will not cause any harm in the immediate future. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

9. The distance between Paul and the owner of Stern Electronics is close. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

10. Paul’s action will harm very few people (if any) Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

11. I believe Paul’s behavior in the above scenario is: Highly Insignificant Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Significant Extremely Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant

[31]

12. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Fundamentally No Issue Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Issue Fundamental of No Issue of no issue of issue Issue 13. The situation above involves an ethical dilemma. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

14. I am: (circle one) Male Female 15. My major is: (circle one) a. Accounting b. Finance c. Other business d. Other non-business 16. My overall GPA is: a. 3.5-4.0 b. 3.0-3.49 c. 2.5-2.99 d. 2.0-2.49 e. Lower than a 2.0

[32]

Facebook® Scenario – Low Moral Intensity

Nate Johnson is an intern at Lawson, Fredericks & Anderson LLP, a medium-sized CPA firm. Nate is nearing the end of a four-month, positive internship experience and is enjoying a moment, after a hard days work, with various senior staff and managers from his firm. Nate is aware that his ability to interact socially with his future co-workers is as important to them as his knowledge of accounting. At the conclusion of the internship, fulltime offers will be made to top performers who fit in well with the firm. Soon, the lighthearted talk turns to a discussion of a post busy season office party last year where members of a university’s student accounting organization from another state had interacted with some individuals from the firm. Apparently things had gotten a little wild which always seems to be the case with this school’s accounting student group. Nate actually is aware of this school’s accounting group’s reputation, and knows that the group’s official Facebook® profile holds a number of incriminating and potentially damaging pictures of its members. Nate knows this because he is an official Facebook® ‘friend’ of this group which allows him access to their postings. Unexpectedly, one of the senior managers tells Nate that if the questionable moral allegations against the school’s accounting group are true, the firm is going to cease recruiting at that university. A number of this school’s group members are up for consideration for the firm’s Summer Leadership Program in the following school year. The senior manager then asks Nate if he could pull up the group’s Facebook® profile so they could check out the pictures and postings of the group. There is about a 10% chance the pictures from the Facebook® profile will have a negative impact on the reputation of the school’s program. But if they do, members of the school will not be considered for next year’s Summer Leadership Program. Nate remembers conversations with friends who have told him they have been asked to show friends’ Facebook® profiles many times for firms they’ve worked for, and they’ve done it.

Facebook® Scenario – High Moral Intensity

Nate Johnson is an intern at Lawson, Fredericks & Anderson LLP, a medium-sized CPA firm. Nate is nearing the end of a four-month, positive internship experience and is enjoying a moment, after a hard days work, with various senior staff and managers from his firm. Nate is aware that his ability to interact socially with his future co-workers is as important to them as his knowledge of accounting. At the conclusion of the internship, fulltime offers will be made to top performers who fit in well with the firm. Soon, the lighthearted talk turns to a discussion of a recent evening after work, when a friend of Nate’s from his school, also serving as an intern, got pretty wild with some members of the firm. Nate actually is aware of his friend’s wild reputation and knows that her official Facebook® profile holds a number of incriminating and potentially damaging pictures of her. Nate knows this because he is an official Facebook® ‘friend’ of this young woman, which allows him access to her postings. Unexpectedly, one of the senior managers tells Nate that if questionable moral allegations made against this young woman are true, the firm is not going to hire her for a fulltime position. The senior manager then asks Nate if he could pull up the individual’s Facebook® profile so they could check out her pictures and postings. There is about a 60% chance the pictures from Facebook® will have a negative impact on Nate’s friend. If they do, she will not be offered a fulltime position with the firm which is to start next month. Nate remembers conversations with friends who have told him they have been asked to show friends’ Facebook® profiles many times for firms they’ve worked for, and they’ve never done it.

[33]

Action: Nate decides to show the Facebook® profile to his senior manager. Please evaluate

his actions. 1. Nate should not do the proposed action. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

2. If I were Nate, I would make the same decision. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

3. I believe Nate’s behavior in the above scenario is: Extremely Important Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Unimportant. Extremely Important Important Unimportant Unimportant

4. The overall harm (if any) done as a result of Nate’s action would be very small. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

5. Most people would agree that Nate’s action is wrong. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

6. There is a very small likelihood that Nate’s action will actually cause any harm. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

7. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Considerable Concern Somewhat Neutral Somewhat No Concern Considerably Concern of concern of no concern of no concern

8. Nate’s action will not cause any harm in the immediate future. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

9. The distance between Nate and the owner of Stern Electronics is close. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

10. Nate’s action will harm very few people (if any) Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

11. I believe Nate’s behavior in the above scenario is: Highly Insignificant Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Significant Extremely Insignificant Insignificant Significant Significant

[34]

12. To me, the issue discussed in the above scenario is of: Fundamentally No Issue Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Issue Fundamental of No Issue of no issue of issue Issue

13. The situation above involves an ethical dilemma. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree/ agree agree disagree

14. I am: (circle one) Male Female 15. My major is: (circle one) a. Accounting b. Finance c. Other business d. Other non-business 16. My overall GPA is: a. 3.5-4.0 b. 3.0-3.49 c. 2.5-2.99 d. 2.0-2.49 e. Lower than a 2.0

[35]

Appendix C

Moral Intensity Manipulations

Stern Electronics Facebook®

High Low High Low

Magnitude of Consequences

Bad debts from default are 70% of sale

Bad debts from default are 20% of sale

Loss of full-time job

Loss of leadership position

Social Consensus

No other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales

Other individuals in the firm have extended credit to risky customers to ensure short-term sales

No other friends have shown Facebook®

profiles to

internship

employers

Other friends have shown Facebook®

profiles to

internship

employers

Probability of Effect

60% chance of default on payment

10% chance of default on payment

60% chance pictures will have negative impact

10% chance picture will have negative impact

Temporal Immediacy

Default likely to be discovered next quarter

Default likely to be discovered in over a year

Firm placement next month

Firm placement next year

Proximity* Victim is COO of Stern, located in town

Victim is parent company, located in Netherlands

Individual is from own school

Individual is from school in other state

Concentration of Effect

Victim is sole owner

Victims are multiple shareholders

Individual involved in hiring decision

Accounting group involved in hiring decision

*Proximity was excluded from the interpretation of the results due to error discovered after administration.

[36]

References

Abdolmohammadi, M., Read, W., & Scarbrough, P. (2003). Does selection-socialization help to

explain accountants' weak ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics,42(1), 71-81.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2009). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from

AICPA Code of Professional Conduct: http://www.aicpa.org

Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1983). Can ethics be taught to business students? The Collegiate

Forum, 17.

Armstrong, M. (1987). Moral development and accounting education. Journal of Accounting

Education,5(1), 27-43.

Baird, J. E., Zelin, R. C., & Brennan, P. J. (2006). Academic major, gender, personal values, and

reactions to an ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Case Studies, 2(2)73-82.

Barnett, T. (2001). Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision making: An empirical

study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,31(5), 1038–1057.

Barnett, T., & Valentine, S. (2004). Issue contingencies and marketers' recognition of ethical

issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions . Journal of Business Research,57(4), 338-

346.

Cherrington, J. O., & Cherrington, D. J. (1979). Honesty and business ethics in the accounting

profession. Collected Papers of the American Accounting Association's Annual Meeting, 645-

658.

Dubinsky, A., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of

Business Research, 19(2), 83-107.

Ferrell, O., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical

Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87-96.

Flory, S., Phillips, T., Reidenbach, E., & Robin, D. (1992). A Multidimensional Analysis of

Selected Ethical Issues in Accounting. The Accounting Review, 67(2), 284-302.

Frey, B. F. (2000). Investigating moral intensity with the world-wide web: A look at participant

reactions and a comparison of methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &

Computers,32(3), 423-431.

Fulmer, W. E., & Cargile, B. R. (1987). Ethical perceptions of accounting students: Does

exposure to a code of professional ethics help? Issues in Accounting Education,2(2), 207-209.

[37]

Garson, G. D. (2010, January 30). Reliability analysis. Retrieved September 2010, from NC

State University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences:

http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/reliab.htm#alpha

Giacomino, D. E. (1992). Ethical perceptions of accounting majors and other business majors:

An empirical study. Accounting Educators' Journal,5(1), 1-26.

Guffey, D. M., & McCartney, M. W. (2008). The perceived importance of an ethical issue as a

determinant of ethical decision-making for accounting student in an academic setting.

Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 327-348.

Haines, R., Street, M., & Haines, D. (2008). The Influence of Perceived Importance of an Ethical

Issue on Moral Judgment, Moral Obligation, and Moral Intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2),

387-389.

Ho, D. (2003). MCI blocked from new government contracts. Retrieved 2010, from

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_ news/6429267.htm

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. A. (1986). A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal of

Macromarketing, 6(1), 5-16.

Ibrahim, N., & Angelidis, J. (2009). The Relative Importance of Ethics as a Selection Criterion

for Entry-Level Public Accountants: Does Gender Make a Difference? Journal of Business

Ethics, 85(1), 49-58.

Institute of Management Accountants. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from Statement of

Ethical Professional Practice: http://imanet.org/about_ethics_statement.asp

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue

contingent model. Academy of Management Review,16(2), 366-395.

Kohlberg, L. (1979). Measuring moral judgement. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Lampe, J., & Finn, D. (1992). A model of accountants' ethical decision process. Accounting a

Journal of Practice and Theory,11, 33-59.

Leitsch, D. L. (2006). Using dimensions of moral intensity to predict ethical decision-making in

accounting. Accounting Education: an international journal,15(2), 135-149.

Loe, T., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical

decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics,25(3), 185-204.

Mappes, T. (1988). What is personal ethics and should we be teaching more of it? Teaching

Philosophy,11(1), 33-40.

[38]

May, D. R., & Flannery, Brenda. (2000). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making:

A review and investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Academy of

Management Journal , 43(4), 642-662.

May, D., & Pauli, K. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making: a review and

investigation of moral recognition, evaluation, and intention. Business and Societ,41(1), 84-117.

McMahon, J., & Harvey, R. (2006). An Analysis of the Factor Structure of Jones’ Moral

Intensity Construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 381–404.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

Robin, D., Reidenbach, R. E., & Forrest, P. (1996). The perceived importance of an ethical issue

as an influence on the ethical decision-making of ad managers. Journal of Business Research,

35(1), 17-28.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2003). Ethical attitudes among accounting majors: An empirical study.

Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,3(1-2), 71-77.

Singhapakdi, A. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals.

Journal of Business Research,36(3), 245-255.

Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S., & Franke, G. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating

effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 27(1), 19-36.

Stanga, K., & Turpen, R. (1991). Ethical judgments on selected accounting issues: An empirical

study. Journal of Business Ethics,10(10), 739.

Sweeney, B., & Costello, F. (2009). Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-making: An Empirical

Examination of Undergraduate Accounting and Business Students. Accounting Education, 18(1),

75 - 97.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation

Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.

Turpen, R. A., & Witmer, P. R. (1997). Ethics in the search for accounting employment: Student

and recruiter perceptions. Accounting Horizons,11, 65-80.

Velasquez, M. G., & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[39]

Wright, G., Cullinan, C., & Bline, D. (1997). The relationship between an individual's value and

perceptions of moral intensity: An empirical study. Behavioral Research in Accounting,9, 26-40.

Yetmar, S. A., & Eastman, K. K. (2000). Tax practitioners' ethical sensitivity: A model and

empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics,26(4), 271-288.

Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,

12(3), 341-352.